Dr_Satan@lemm.ee to No Stupid Questions@lemmy.world · 4 months agoWhat are the strengths of the scientific method? What are its weaknesses?message-squaremessage-square51fedilinkarrow-up160arrow-down18
arrow-up152arrow-down1message-squareWhat are the strengths of the scientific method? What are its weaknesses?Dr_Satan@lemm.ee to No Stupid Questions@lemmy.world · 4 months agomessage-square51fedilink
minus-squareboyi@lemmy.sdf.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up6·4 months agostrength is it’s replicable. Not just somebody claiming something without justifying it can happen.
minus-squareryathal@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down5·4 months agoThis is totally false in practice.
minus-squareboyi@lemmy.sdf.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up3arrow-down1·edit-24 months agoHow is this incorrect? In which field? And how do you confirm you the validity of your methodology?
minus-squareryathal@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up2·4 months agoReplication rarely happens and in many cases is outright impossible due to lack of shared code. Things should be replicable, but that hasn’t been the case for a while.
minus-squaresurewhynotlem@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up4·4 months agoSo then the failure of the scientific method is that people aren’t following it. That’s not so much a problem with the method.
minus-squareryathal@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down1·4 months agoIf a method can’t practically be followed it’s a sign of a bad method, or at least one that needs modification.
minus-squareemergencyfood@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up3·4 months agoIt’s not that it can’t practically be followed, it is just that everyone running after H-index or whatever the hot thing is now has resulted in a drop in quality.
minus-squaresurewhynotlem@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·edit-24 months agoIt can easily be followed. Just not within capitalism. Edit: But you’re correct. And that’s what we’re seeing. A modified version.
minus-squareboyi@lemmy.sdf.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up3arrow-down1·edit-24 months agothe correct term you need is ‘unachievable’, not ‘false’. […] anyway, it depends on the field and type of study.
minus-squareryathal@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down2·4 months agoThat’s just wordplay to make the problem seem like it’s not as big of a problem.
minus-squareforce@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·edit-24 months agoCommon standards for language formally used in a specific field/profession/discipline aren’t “wordplay” lol
minus-squareryathal@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down2·4 months agoThis isn’t a professional forum. Playing the “it’s a technical term” game is absolutely wordplay.
strength is it’s replicable. Not just somebody claiming something without justifying it can happen.
This is totally false in practice.
How is this incorrect? In which field? And how do you confirm
youthe validity of your methodology?Replication rarely happens and in many cases is outright impossible due to lack of shared code.
Things should be replicable, but that hasn’t been the case for a while.
So then the failure of the scientific method is that people aren’t following it. That’s not so much a problem with the method.
If a method can’t practically be followed it’s a sign of a bad method, or at least one that needs modification.
It’s not that it can’t practically be followed, it is just that everyone running after H-index or whatever the hot thing is now has resulted in a drop in quality.
It can easily be followed. Just not within capitalism.
Edit: But you’re correct. And that’s what we’re seeing. A modified version.
the correct term you need is ‘unachievable’, not ‘false’. […] anyway, it depends on the field and type of study.
That’s just wordplay to make the problem seem like it’s not as big of a problem.
Common standards for language formally used in a specific field/profession/discipline aren’t “wordplay” lol
This isn’t a professional forum. Playing the “it’s a technical term” game is absolutely wordplay.